MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410594100 · doi:10.1177/01632787251341460

Evaluation of the Effects of the Strengthening Families Program in Quebec Adolescents and Parents Living in Challenging Family Conditions

2025· article· en· W4410594100 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Hamel, Carl Lacharité, Michael Cantinotti, Andrée-Anne Lepage, Jean Montambeault, Chantal Chicoine

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation & the Health Professions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Multivariate analysisPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) has recognized value in preventing criminality and drug use in adolescents from underprivileged backgrounds. The objective of this study was to measure the effects of a 14-week version of this program targeting adolescents 12-16 years old in two medium-sized Quebec municipalities, using a repeated-measure design. The study participants were: 1) an intervention group, consisting of 71 adolescents and 61 parents who participated in the SFP between January 2018 and December 2019; and 2) a comparison group, consisting of 57 adolescents and 56 parents. Multivariate longitudinal regression indicates that the SFP reinforces some protective factors, such as the parent-child relation, as well as some key dimensions of family strengths. However, no effect was observed on parenting practices or adolescents' social behaviour. The differences between the intervention and control groups, the clinical significance of the results, and challenges of evaluating the SFP are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvaluation & the Health ProfessionsSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207